Hello,
I am trying to get my improved fork of the icculus Wolf3d ready for
release. There are tons of new features, but I am unclear on the
license.
The original license supplied with the wolf3d sources (released in 1995)
seems to be the same license that the proprietary wolf3d itself was
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 06:48:48PM -0700, Bruce Perens wrote:
What do you mean failed utterly? We haven't even begun discussions
and this could not take less than months.
I am on the geek cruise and can't email much this week. Since GFDL documents
are not going to change instantly, I
Le ven 19/09/2003 à 03:55, Don Armstrong a écrit :
On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
This prompts an interesting question: Does the Official Debian logo
meet the DFSG test?
No, but I'm pretty sure that we don't include the official logo in the
Debian distribution.
True, but the
On Thu, Sep 18, 2003 at 10:43:08PM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote:
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 20:37, Andrea wrote:
Yes, I'm traditionalist. Software is anything that can be treated as a
sequence of bits in a computer. Documentation is software. Ham
sandwiches aren't. :)
... at least until
Can you give us an indication as to what the clarified text will look
like, or what restrictions it will contain? [Just so we're all on the
same page with regards to the sections problems.]
I've decided not to do that. The development of GNU licenses is not a
Debian issue.
Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
The DFSG very clearly treats software and programs as
synonymous.
And we very clearly treat everything in Debian as software (see the
first clause of the Social Contract).
That clause appears to neglect the
Richard Stallman wrote:
Can you give us an indication as to what the clarified text will look
like, or what restrictions it will contain? [Just so we're all on the
same page with regards to the sections problems.]
I've decided not to do that. The development of GNU licenses is not
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 16:05, Walter Landry wrote:
The definition of transparent is similar to, but not the same as
source. For example, the source for a LyX document is not
transparent.
I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
The DFSG very clearly treats software and programs as
synonymous.
And we very clearly treat everything in Debian as software (see the
first clause of the Social
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Can you give us an indication as to what the clarified text will look
like, or what restrictions it will contain? [Just so we're all on the
same page with regards to the sections problems.]
I've decided not to do that. The development
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
The DFSG very clearly treats software and programs as
synonymous.
And we very clearly treat everything in Debian as
On Friday 19 September 2003 14:22, Richard Stallman wrote:
Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
The DFSG very clearly treats software and programs as
synonymous.
And we very clearly treat everything in Debian as software (see the
first clause
Anthony DeRobertis [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thursday, Sep 18, 2003, at 11:24 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
Also, the requirement to distribute a transparent form appears to
violate DFSG 2, since it does not permit distribution in source code
as well as compiled form.
Brian, I'm
RMS said: (in re
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00652.html):
All I want to say about the new issue is that a small fractional
increase in size for a large collection of manuals is not a big deal.
That's not enough to make a license non-free.
The GFDL, however,
Perhaps we have hit the key parts of the disagreement, finally. I would
love to get some further clarification from RMS on his views, so I have
asked a few questions below. I have made 4 points in response to this
one paragraph, but the questions are in points 3 and 4.
RMS wrote:
By
Le ven 19/09/2003 à 17:39, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
However, Debian has a pretty clear definition, according to supposedly
Bruce Perens's statements. According to this clear definition, the
official Debian Logo should go in non-free.
We don't ship the official (jar+swirl) Debian logo in main. If
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Does everybody on that list, that thinks that GNU
political/historical/philosophical/ texts must be DSFG compliant to be
distributed by Debian, also thinks that the Debian logos must be DFSG
compliant?
No. I think it's much easier for Debian to make an
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 12:05, Richard Stallman wrote:
That is why I recently asked to hear from Debian developers whether
they are still making up their minds about the matter and whether they
are interested in what I have to say about it. If this is generally
not the case, I will stop
Josselin Mouette wrote:
This prompts an interesting question: Does the Official Debian logo
meet the DFSG test?
No, but I'm pretty sure that we don't include the official logo in the
Debian distribution.
True, but the swirl logo fails the DFSG as well, as you can only use it
to refer to the
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 01:39:34PM -0400, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
My gdm logon screen has the swirl, as did my default gnome
background when I installed it (very long ago). I did not use any
package not in main to do so, therefore I think there are swirls
sitting around in main.
Swirl or
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 01:39:34PM -0400, Etienne Gagnon wrote:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
This prompts an interesting question: Does the Official Debian logo
meet the DFSG test?
No, but I'm pretty sure that we don't include the official logo in the
Debian distribution.
True, but the swirl
On Sun, 14 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
licence according to FSD. Note that freedom for certain modified
versions (for example, even a work containing only the GNU Manifesto
invariant section) are effectively blocked, which triggers this
section of reasoning.
Do you really believe in this
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Richard Stallman wrote:
You have mistaken the objection. There is no reason to think it would
be a small fractional increase, especially since little parts of
manuals--single paragraphs even--are useful reusable bits just in the
way
On Fri, 2003-09-19 at 08:22, Richard Stallman wrote:
That clause appears to neglect the fact that there are things
other than software in the system.
The Social contract uses the that which is not hardware definition of
software. In that sense, there is nothing but software in Debian.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 10:48:46AM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
Oh, wow, I'm not sure anybody was expecting *months*.
That helps, anyway. If we had tried to go ahead, it's pretty much
guaranteed that some people would have used your recent mails as an
excuse to delay even longer; they can't
On Tue, Sep 16, 2003 at 10:19:54PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote:
I just discovered that some of the copyright statements in xfree86's
copyright file have clauses that we usually consider non-free.
[...]
(from the GLX PUBLIC LICENSE, and as far as I can eyeball also repeated
verbatim in the CID
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 12:21:48AM -0500, Ryan Underwood wrote:
I am trying to get my improved fork of the icculus Wolf3d ready for
release. There are tons of new features, but I am unclear on the
license.
Could you please post the text of the license to the mailing list in
plain text format?
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Richard Stallman wrote:
Can you give us an indication as to what the clarified text will look
like, or what restrictions it will contain? [Just so we're all on the
same page with regards to the sections problems.]
I've decided not to do that. The development
On Sat, Sep 20, 2003 at 03:37:59AM +0900, Fedor Zuev wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Richard Stallman wrote:
You have mistaken the objection. There is no reason to think it would
be a small fractional increase, especially since little parts of
manuals--single
Fedor Zuev wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
As has been previously pointed out, fair use is far from a universal
concept.
Berne Convention, art. 10 par. 1
That's not fair use. Paragraph 1 deals with citations. It's
paragraph 2 that provides for fair use. And
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Le ven 19/09/2003 à 17:39, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
However, Debian has a pretty clear definition, according to supposedly
Bruce Perens's statements. According to this clear definition, the
official Debian Logo should go in non-free.
We don't
On 2003-09-19 19:37:59 +0100 Fedor Zuev [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 17 Sep 2003, Matthew Garrett wrote:
As has been previously pointed out, fair use is far from a universal
concept.
Berne Convention, art. 10 par. 1
Par 2 says that the extent is a matter for national legislation,
Edmund GRIMLEY EVANS [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
So the next step seems obvious to me, Debian have make a choice:
- follow the strict definition of DFSG promoted by many
persons on that list and move the Official Debian Logo to
non-free.
- think about
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 12:21:48AM -0500, Ryan Underwood wrote:
I am trying to get my improved fork of the icculus Wolf3d ready for
release. There are tons of new features, but I am unclear on the
license.
Could you please post the text of
On Fri, 19 Sep 2003, Mathieu Roy wrote:
However, does not it mean that Debian recognize that in some case
some software (in the large sense) can be non-DFSG and still
acceptable?
Aceptable for what? We have our share of non-DFSG software in
non-free, and we haven't gone on a holy war to rid
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
Le ven 19/09/2003 à 17:39, Mathieu Roy a écrit :
However, Debian has a pretty clear definition, according to supposedly
Bruce Perens's statements. According to this clear definition, the
official Debian
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
And, finally, if I correctly understood this page, if I get an
official Debian CD, with this Logo as cover, I'm not able to provide
a copy of this official Debian CD unless I completely follow a process
documented at www.debian.org.
I forgot one thing:
Anthony DeRobertis writes:
I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out
that problem. But that's not what Brian said --- he said that there is a
violation of DFSG 2 since it does not permit 'distribution in source
code as well as compiled form'. That's what I'd like
On 2003-09-19 22:06:34 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The GNU Documentation under discussion _is_ in the category of
political/philosophical/historical texts. Only these texts can be
invariant in the GFDL.
Sorry, it is the entire work which must be DFSG-free, not only some
smaller
On 2003-09-19 22:00:01 +0100 Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm a bit puzzled if you are about to claim that you truly _require_
to be able to modify the GNU Manifesto while, at the same time, not
giving the right to anyone to print an Official Debian Logo on a
tshirt is something
On 2003-09-19 13:22:10 +0100 Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've decided not to do that. The development of GNU licenses is not a
Debian issue.
I wonder if the only FDL consultation comment posted on their site
that gets any sort of reply was from a GNU project member? For the
Mathieu Roy [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
One could do that, but it wouldn't help because the FSF documentation
under discussion is neither a logo nor in the category of
political/philosophical/historical texts.
The GNU Documentation under discussion _is_ in the category of
Brian W. Carver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Anthony DeRobertis writes:
I understand that; in fact, I was one of the many people who pointed out
that problem. But that's not what Brian said --- he said that there is a
violation of DFSG 2 since it does not permit 'distribution in source
code as
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
This is not allowed for a GFDL manual, is it?
The GFDL allows you to make any changes you like in the technical
substance of the manual, just as the TeX license allows you to make
any changes you like in the technical substance of TeX.
Yes,
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The DFSG says that we must have the right to modify everything, at
least by the use of patch files.
I cannot find that in the DFSG. If you are talking about this part,
PThe license may restrict source-code from being distributed
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Manuals are not free software, because they are not software.
The DFSG very clearly treats software and programs as
synonymous.
In that case, the DFSG prohibits their distribution outright.
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Can you give us an indication as to what the clarified text will look
like, or what restrictions it will contain? [Just so we're all on the
same page with regards to the sections problems.]
I've decided not to do that. The development
Richard Stallman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The GNU Project's motive for using invariant sections is not the issue
here; that's a GNU Project decision, not a Debian decision.
You are arguing that you should have a voice in what Debian does.
I have said nothing of the kind.
Dylan Thurston [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On 2003-09-18, Thomas Bushnell, BSG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Eben Moglen has told RMS that it's ok for us to do the Unicode trick:
to alter it into some other form, and then that new form is entirely
unrestricted by the license. And then, if we
Scripsit Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please file a bug report against the xfree86 package and include a
reference to this thread's URL on lists.debian.org.
OK, done. Bug #211675.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention, Henning.
Hm, I don't know... Further investigation reveals
Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
OK. I have a copy of Emacs here, licensed to me under the GNU GPL2.
I have made some modifications to it, and updated the changelogs and
history notes. I wish to give it to a friend. Section 2b requires
that I distribute my new program, Sniffmacs, under the terms of
RMS wrote (in
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00776.html):
Part of the document can be a separate file,
because a document can be more than one file.
This detail of wording doesn't make a difference that I can see.
Aha. I just found a way to put GFDL manuals
On Friday, Sep 19, 2003, at 19:43 US/Eastern, Brian T. Sniffen wrote:
I, um, think he meant me, given I *did* say there is a violation of
DFSG 2, since binary-only distribution is not permitted.
Ah! Yeah, that must be what I meant...
I'm curious: Considering the GPL prohibits binary-only
Matthieu Roy wrote:
Does everybody on that list, that thinks that GNU
political/historical/philosophical/ texts must be DSFG compliant to be
distributed by Debian, also thinks that the Debian logos must be DFSG
compliant?
There's a difference at the moment between distributed by Debian and part
Josselin Mouette wrote:
True, but the swirl logo fails the DFSG as well, as you can only use it
to refer to the project, and it doesn't allow explicitly other uses.
Quite correct. It should be relicensed, under a permissive copyright
licence, with a note saying:
* This copyright license does
Nathanael Nerode [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You seem to be suggesting that this would satisfy the distribution terms of
the GFDL. Are you really suggesting this? If so, we may have a solution.
Alas, not a solution. We promise our users that they can legally
distribute Debian. Under your
Hi,
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 11:12:17PM +0200, Mathieu Roy wrote:
Branden Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] a tapoté :
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 12:21:48AM -0500, Ryan Underwood wrote:
I am trying to get my improved fork of the icculus Wolf3d ready for
release. There are tons of new features,
On Fri, Sep 19, 2003 at 08:53:47PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
Josselin Mouette wrote:
True, but the swirl logo fails the DFSG as well, as you can only use it
to refer to the project, and it doesn't allow explicitly other uses.
Quite correct. It should be relicensed, under a permissive
58 matches
Mail list logo
